Tufin Orchestration Suite Reviews

What I like most is the end to end view which is quite important for supporting the design teams.

In the design team, everything is based on things that already exists and Tufin helps us make changes safely.

I'd like to say SDN needs to be improved. This is the key and where the revolution in technology is going. This is something you need to be aware of as the legacy devices are not compatible with the SDN devices.

As far as I know, it’s OK.

It's been able to scale for our needs. What we have is OK.

Great. I’m not in a direct relationship with them, so it’s indirect but it's OK I think.

We didn't look at any other solutions.

I think we’re not using it for all the devices we intend to use it for, but somewhere in the middle. It works, it's as simple as that because we noticed the difference after we got it working, and we immediately saw the advantages of having it.

Being able to use tools and zero key rules, we are in a place to clean up. It is good for management because they can see exactly what is going on.

It gives us a better view of the rules. We found that we can send invites to the owner of the application to find out if they still needs to use it, and if they say that they don't want it, then we can observe the rule and remove it if possible.

More integrations is something that I would like to see in the future.

It is very stable.

It's been able to scale for our needs. We only need to drag files for our subsidiaries into our devices, and currently we have about forty or fifty devices.

I've never contacted them directly as I go through our partner who were also the reseller.

I think it was very easy. Of course the technical guy was very good. He did it in a matter of two or three days because it was a big contract.

We are very happy and it's a good product We take the reports, we see the zero keys, we see no rules that are not used, rules left over, I focus on those because this is my field.

The most valuable feature for us is Tufin's versatility. Depending on the kind of device, we can correlate information from both the device and from the client. This is highly useful for us.

Tufin's given us the ability to correlate between policy and firewall rules. We can even search for the correlations to determine violations and exceptions. Also, it's a solution where we can define our entire company's security policies.

It needs better correlation so that it's easier to not have to look for information underneath all the data. So, even though the policy and firewalls are correlated, it's difficult to find them when we need to.

We haven't had any issues with deployment. In fact, it was very easy to do.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

The initial setup was not complex. It was fairly easy and straightforward.

We implemented it with our in-house team.

The most valuable feature for us is the configuration control. This helps us to comply with company policy.

We can very quickly understand the admin configuration made by the administrator.

Also, year to year the policies always grow and every day we need to check and remove rules, policies, and objects that we already have. So another very helpful feature that we use is that we take from the policies unused objects that have not been used in a long time.

We need to include more products from different vendors, but we need a universal solution to make our installations different. For example, with the web application firewalls, we need to control them. With the ideas system, we need to control them too, and if we talk about ideas and we have the solution from different vendors who have their own names for the same security checks and customer, we as an integrator need to get a deeper understanding of the difference between the different configurations.

There's also another issue. I have a very big customer, but they have some offices where they placed a check point at the wrong end. They have multiple branches, and for different branches they have a management server, but each branch needs a solution like Tufin because if you talk about every branch, it's like another big company with their own branches. We don't have the option to place Tufin at certain branches because we don't have administration rights at the branch. We need another way to use Tufin without the administration rights.

We've had no issues with deploying it.

Two years ago we had some problems with stability, but now it's resolved. Since then, we've had no issues with instability.

It's scaleable for our needs. We've had no issues with scalability.

I think technical support has worked well for us.

Implementing new rules and the ticket system as users are creating changes. We're using Tufin to implement these rules.

It's much easier to implement rules. It's easier to have an overview of the policies because we don't have to review them, so it's much faster.

Sometimes it hangs when I go to the designer or verification. You can wait, wait, wait and then forget it. Then you cancel it and start again, and within two seconds, there it is.

Stability is OK. My customer has one problem, but I am not sure where the problem is. It's not really my part to fix the problems so that they do not always get the target. They have nine gateways and by some changes, Tufin does not find the target. You have to search for the target which has the policy where the change has to be implemented. This is so complicated if you do not know the policy as well.

It's been able to scale for our needs.

I've never had to use technical support yet.

The setup is complex. I think Tufin is a big product.

Sometimes I work with the AlgoSec solution as well, but not much. I think Tufin's user interface is a little bit better, but this is subjective.

It’s the fact that before Tufin it wasn’t possible to manage firewall changes. We used emails.

Different departments can actually intervene at the same time on the same workflow and actually accelerate the job. Previously, we didn’t have that, so that’s a big thing.

• Previously, we couldn’t figure out a way to make our processes more efficient. With Tufin our goal is to automate this process. We haven’t achieved it yet but at least we have a vision.
• The fact that tickets can be dispatched automatically and analyzed prior to them being validated by the security teams.

We have some regressions from one burden to another. It was hard, so that’s definitely something we’re not happy with.

We have a PS module that we have been developing since we started working with Tufin. It was around two years ago and still isn’t finalized.

One of the things that I would like to see improved is the stability of the solution.

They do everything they can to reply as fast as they can but sometimes when problems are too complex, and they have to involve R&D, it can take quite a while to solve.

It was already deployed when I started working here, and it was a change for me, but it was straightforward. Most of the guided stuff was internal to the company. The architecture is not good but that’s got to do with the architecture on our side.

We also looked at AlgoSec, and it looks interesting especially the workflow parts which are more detailed.

We use it mainly for rule base analysis. We do a lot of customs and they always have complex custom rule bases, so we need to be able to go through the rule base and also to optimize the rules.

We don't use it on a day to day basis. Obviously we're running it all the time but we only need to look at it once a month when we do a review. It's not something that we use all of the time. When we do perform a review, it gets passed across to the lead engineers for that particular account to look at the rule bases and agree on what we're going to do with it and then they sort it out.

One of the things that I think they're all missing is something that Indeni does where they mount the boxes proactively for us.

We've been using it for around four, maybe five years.

We have had no performance issues.

We did have an issue with load on the original machine but that was actually our fault. We've put it onto new servers now and haven't had a problem.

They're very, very good.

There's obviously some complexity to it because you've got to open up rules for the rule bases in order to talk to firewalls, but it was easy.

We also looked at FireMon. One of our presidents chose Tufin. I don't know which project it was chosen for, but I knew once it was chosen, because we deal with the development and it was decided we would only have one standard solution.

If you follow the instructions you're good.

At the moment, it's that it takes the changes made during the day and runs a report during the night so that we can go back and if there was an issue, see if it had something to do with changes that we made in the firewall.

Day to day, if you have a problem you can go back and see if it could be something that is related to a change that you made, because the time of the change is the same as the time the problem appeared. Then we can roll back.

It's not only the firewall rulebase we are interested in, but also application control and URL filtering and they don't do this at the moment. Once they can handle this, then they will get a better rating.

We've been using it for three or four years.

It's absolutely stable.

We are large, but we have no problem with scalability. We have less than ten firewalls and it handles the traffic well.

We're not in touch with Tufin, and haven't had to contact our partner much either.

It was easy. More or less, it's just plug n play.

Our partner/reseller installed it for us.

We also looked at AlgoSec, but I don't know why Tufin was chosen as this was decided by senior management.

Once the application control is in the system, it is a great product.